or liberals facts are never really important. Truth to liberals like Democrat New York City Congressman Jerrold Nadler is what he feels it is. Nadler has said: Hunters dont use large ammunition clips, and as far as self- defense, I mean who are you defending yourself against? If youre defending yourself against a robber two or three or four shots should be enoughperiod.

Its a safe bet Nadler has never faced an assailant fueled by adrenalin drugs and alcohol. That doesnt matter, of course, since no one will ever challenge Nadler on his supposed knowledge of the danger presented by people who are psychotic and drunk  period.

The period at the end of Nadlers pronouncement is the classic liberal dismissal of anyone daring to disagree with their use of feelings as facts.

Nadlers fantasy about real shooting combat brings up the death of New York City Police Sergeant Edward J. Johnson.

On January 8, 1960 Sergeant Johnson and his driver were on patrol in the Bowery district of lower Manhattan. The area was dotted with dozens of soup kitchens that catered to the skid row drunks and mental patients that freely walked New Yorks streets.

Johnson responded to a call of a man with a knife who was menacing the staff and clients one of those soup kitchens. When Johnson arrived another team of cops was already on the scene and attempting to subdue the man in a narrow hallway. He was clearly a drunken paranoid schizophrenic. He had a 16 inch bread knife and was not giving it up.

At some point the man lunged at Johnson and all four cops started shooting from less than seven feet away. They fired 24 shots hitting him 16 times. Four of the shots should have killed the drunken psychotic instantly. One cleanly severed his spinal cord; another went through his heart. None of those shots killed him fast enough to stop him from plunging his knife into Sergeant Edward Johnsons heart. Johnson died at the scene. The drunken psychotic died seconds later; but way too late.

Jerrold Nadler is a jackass; but he feels the right way about guns so thats good enough  period.

Great! Let’s start out by limiting police officers to guns with 3 rounds only. Right in the middle of his allowable range. More than that shouldn’t be ever be necessary. After all, the criminals the police have to confront are the very same ones victimizing the rest of us.

4
posted on 01/19/2013 7:19:21 AM PST
by coloradan
(The US has become a banana republic, except without the bananas - or the republic.)

There are over 8,000 home invasions each year with an average of 2-3 criminals taking part. 2-4 bullets would only work for a trained SEAL and he would probably still prefer more. Reducing the number of bullets could be called the Rapist Protection Act as it does nothing to protect the victim.

100% FACT: In just the first 5 Amendments, it is perfectly clear that the founders wanted the citizens protected from GOVERNMENT, not rabid deer.

100% FACT: For the 2nd Amendment to have ANY worth, the citizens MUST have, at bare minimum, the same arms that the government would be willing to use against them.

100% FACT: With the very first law/regulation on the citizen’s RTKBA the 2nd Amendment was rendered moot. Both sides of the debate never seem to get to the “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED” portion which for an honest person would end any debate on the subject. They have INFRINGED therefore the Federal and state governments are currently in direct violation of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. There is no honest way around this point.

100% FACT: The first time speech was limited the 1st Amendment was rendered moot. Yes you can yell fire in a theater but if it is not on fire then you are responsible for any injury.

100% FACT: The 4th Amendment is completely worthless with government being allowed to search you without a warrant.

100% FACT: The 5th Amendment is being dismantled in many areas like forced traffic stops/inspections where you are essentially forced into acts which can and will be used against you.

The only one of the first 5 Amendments which is not currently under attack is the 3rd but with the others gone, who cares?

And before anyone attempts to attack the point on traffic stops by saying “well a right to drive is not in the Constitution”, I say, thank you communist union teachers for making us so Constitutionally ignorant. WE HAVE ALL CREATOR GIVEN RIGHTS except for those which the Founders agreed to assign to the Federal government and the citizens of individual states decided to assign to their state government.

If you want to look into the constitution for rights given to you by the government then you need to read the constitution for the former Soviet Union as it was they not the USA which gave government the power to assign rights.

I have some pet pointers about neurosurgical technique, 5-tone compositional scoring and particle accelerator design I’d like to share when fatass Nadler frees up the floor. Let me know if anyone sees any fat-quakes toward the door.

25
posted on 01/19/2013 8:09:47 AM PST
by muir_redwoods
(Don't fire until you see the blue of their helmets)

Just stepping back and using common sense here, my guess is the number of bullets that are enough “self-defense shots” is equal to the number of shots fired that results in the assailant being rendered incapable of posing a threat which requires self-defense.

what if you're defending yourself against....2 robbers? then you might need 4-8 shots. possibly more. What if you're defending yourself against 3 robbers? you might need 8-16 shots at that point then. What if you're confronted by an angry rioting mob? or a Gang? You'll probably want an assault rifle at that point with multiple 30 round magazines. The point of self defense firearm is to be maximally prepared to defend your life, not questionably prepared.

During his recent gun legislation speech, he President affirmed self defense as a legitimate reason for firearm ownership when he stated: "There are millions of responsible, law-abiding gun owners in America who cherish their right to bear arms for hunting, or sport, or protection, or collection. Having made that admission, the democrats now have to accept the reality that there is an increased incidence of multiple perpetrator homicides in America.

Excuse me, Mr. Robber. I’d really appreciate it if you’d kneel down and put your head against this barrel. Yes, just like that. Now, please, don’t move or I’ll have used up my limit of shots. Thank you so very much for your cooperation in this.

36
posted on 01/19/2013 9:00:18 AM PST
by bgill
(We've passed the point of no return. Welcome to Al Amerika.)

with 4 shots even if you miss half the time you can still kill 2 people. that is, if you are not shooting those scary hollow point bullets. then, an extra 2 will probably be killed somehow. Yeah, I see his logic

It sounds like Waddler is trying to split the baby here. He doesn’t want civilians to have *any* shots. *None.* *Zero.* But he knows he can’t get a 100% ban on all guns, so he’s trying to stake out what seems, to him, to be a reasonable compromise. That’s what all these fools who are calling for 10-round maximum magazines are trying to do.

In their hearts, they want the little people (not counting their personal bodyguards) completely disarmed but they know they can’t get that so they try for a compromise. His arbitrary number just happens to be less than the arbitrary number the other gun-grabbers are talking about.

40
posted on 01/19/2013 9:41:43 AM PST
by Cyber Liberty
(Obama considers the Third World morally superior to the United States.)

1. Young people in the age range that are a problme are much larger than they used to be and will be harder to take down.
2. The small calibers require more ammunition as they are not nearly as destructive as a .45
3. The use of drugs by perps is nearly universal by perps and they are much harder to stop than in the past.

once a year he went to Rodman’s neck range and practiced with wad cutters. Of course he carried round nose bullets on duty and they shot to a different point of aim.
The wad cutters were so soft they filled the rifling with lead. My job was to clean it after the range. He only had a wooden cleaning rod with slot tip. So cleaning only removed powder fouling.

44
posted on 01/19/2013 10:08:01 AM PST
by Vaquero
(Don't pick a fight with an old guy. If he is too old to fight, he'll just kill you.)

Typical liberal red herring bullhockey...the 2nd Amendment is NOT about hunting or personal self defense. Any such argument regarding personal self defense and hunting, while protected by the 1st Amendment, is only aimed at creating a false problem in search of a solution. The 2nd Amendment IS about the security of a free state. Period.

49
posted on 01/19/2013 12:27:06 PM PST
by pack29172
(Just remember, when seconds count, the cops are only minutes away...)

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.